4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Belozem.
5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant, who had previous convictions for rape and other offences, was arrested, charged with rape and sexual assault and remanded in custody. The charges on which the applicant was later convicted concerned a gang rape by three persons who entered the home of a woman who lived with her two minor daughters, forced her to leave the house and raped the girls, aged thirteen and sixteen.
6.  The preliminary investigation was completed in July 1998. During that stage of the proceedings the investigator held more than twenty interviews with witnesses and the accused, commissioned medical reports and a psychiatric report, conducted searches and collected other evidence.
7.  On 31 July 1998 an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv District Court.
8.  In the following two years and two months the District Court invited the parties to ten or twelve hearings, five or six of which were adjourned. Three adjournments were caused by the fact that one of the jurors was absent. That caused a delay of approximately six months. One adjournment was the result of the absence of the lawyer of one of the accused and another adjournment was occasioned by the absence of the civil plaintiff. The authorities also encountered difficulties in locating and summoning some of the witnesses.
9.  By judgment of 25 September 2000, the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The applicant and the other accused appealed.
10.  By judgment of 28 March 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment and remitted the case on the ground that on 26 May and 28 September 1999 the District Court had ruled on the accused persons' appeals against detention in a composition different from that in which it had sat in the criminal case against them. That was considered to be a “significant breach of procedure” that automatically required the quashing of the District Court's judgment in the criminal case and a fresh trial. In reaching that conclusion, the Regional Court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation on the matter (see paragraph 30 below).
11.  In April 2001 the prosecutor rectified two minor omissions in the indictment.
12.  The new trial started with a hearing on 16 July 2001 which was, however, adjourned, because the victims had not been summoned.
13.  The hearing listed for 25 January 2002 was adjourned as two of the accused did not appear. One of them had fallen ill and the other had left the country.
14.  The hearing listed for 20 February 2002 was adjourned as one of the jurors did not appear.
15.  The hearing listed for 9 May 2002 could not proceed because the applicant's lawyer was attending to other business and the applicant had not had the time to seek assistance from other counsel.
16.  The hearing listed for 19 June 2002 was adjourned because the applicant's lawyer did not appear and the applicant had not retained counsel. The court appointed counsel for the applicant itself and adjourned the hearing.
17.  The court held hearings on 16 and 17 September 2002, 21 and 22 November 2002 and 21 and 24 March 2003. It heard witnesses and the parties' pleadings and admitted other evidence.
18.  Throughout the proceedings delays occurred as a result of the fact that the victims and witnesses could not be found at their registered addresses.
19.  By judgment of 24 March 2003 the applicant and the other accused were found guilty as charged. The applicant was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment.
20.  The applicant appealed to the Regional Court.
21.  The hearing before the Regional Court listed for 2 October 2003 was adjourned as the civil plaintiff, the victim, was absent.
22.  The hearing listed for 2 December 2003 could not proceed as the applicant had fallen ill.
23.  On 13 January 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing at which it heard the parties' pleadings.
24.  By judgment of 28 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment of 24 March 2003.
25.  The applicant filed a cassation appeal.
26.  The Supreme Court of Cassation heard the case on 25 January 2005. By judgment of 9 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts' judgments.
27.  The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on 12 November 1997. On 25 September 2000 he was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were quashed on 28 March 2001 and the trial recommenced. The applicant remained in pre-trial custody. In the fresh trial, on 24 March 2003 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
28.  The applicant remained in custody until 2 December 2003, when he was placed under house arrest. He remained under house arrest until the end of the criminal proceedings on 9 May 2005.